Blockades are a historically complex matter. There have been several attempts in international law to define what is and isn't a legal blockade (although it is definitely an act of war against the target of the blockade) and none of them have proven terribly successful; ultimately what really matters is naval strength, not legalities. In WWI, for example, the British blockade was quite successful, and despite their frequent violations of neutral trade rights (which was annoying) ultimately the German response helped provoke the U.S. into the war (because it resulted in people getting killed). The questions of legality contributed to nothing but dithering on our part, although to be fair, dithering over the war was what the Wilson administration did whenever it had nothing else to keep it busy.
In any case, there is nothing essentially wrong with Israel bockading Gaza given the desire of a number of nations to supply weapons to the Palestinians. The only reason people fuss over the blockade itself is the fact that it's Israel doing it. Normally, in the past, however, the procedure has been to stop ships and inspect them for contraband, although that gets into complex legal issues again dating back to WWI since where something is going may or may not make it contra band. Still, there is nothing wrong with stopping the ships, nor does it matter if it was in international waters. That's what makes it a blockade instead of a customs inspection.
As for the firing, the bottom line is that apparently the other 5 ships acted sensibly and didn't try to fight a hopeless battle, but one did:
Quote:
All six boats in the flotilla were boarded according to the IDF but only one, the Mavi Mamara, offered resistance; the other five surrendered peacefully, the military said.
I see nothing to contradict the idea that violence was confined to one vessel, and this really does not support the idea that Israel went out there and started shooting.
Quote:
The news here, from an Israeli PR flack, was reporting that the initial resistance was with sticks/clubs, and that the live fire was actually from a captured Israeli pistol.
Seems amazing to me. I find it very hard to imagine an Israeli commando boarding party allowing their weapons to be used against them, but there you are.
Im reserving any judgement till the full details come out, but boarding in international waters at nighttime seems asking for a panic reaction; still, if its genuinely a humanitarian mission Im not sure why the goods couldnt simply be cleared through the UN and certified under bond, removing the necessity for a weapons/customs check. Do Israel not trust the UN?
I don't see any reason they should trust the U.N. In any case, however yes, it is highly unlikely that the boarders had a pistol taken and used on them resulting in 7 injuries.
Quote:
The military official said most of the nine deaths were Turks. Twenty people were wounded. Seven Israeli soldiers were also wounded, one seriously.
There may have been only one pistol since apparently improvised weapons were used, but I'm really thinking moe like several pistols, and not ones taken off the boarders. Even if it was, taking someone's weapon and then shooting at them with it, especially when already attacking them with sticks and such doesn't excuse you. All you did was escalate a conflict you couldn't win. People who start a fight with armed men when unarmed themselves aren't victims; they're idiots.
Elmarieh wrote:
At that point I would have gotten my men off the boat and sunk it with rockets.
I don't think I would have done this simply because it's going to be more costly in international terms by a long shot. It's also going to make it harder to prove you were attacked since you sank the evidence.
If the boat had machine guns or RPGS or something and opened fire before the troops boarded it, that would be another story, or if it revealed heavy weapons once they were aboard.
I'm also not sure what you mean by rockets, but if you mean unguided rockets from helicopter rocket pods if the transport helo had escorts, those would probably be adequate. I hope you didn't mean antiship missiles like a Penguin, Exocet or Harpoon. That's a lot of moeny to sink a small boat, and those types of weapons have a nasty habit of deciding to attack another target in close proximity, which is great if you're firing at a bunch of Iranian gunboats or something but not so great when you have one belligerant in a group of 5 other merchant ships you don't want to sink. SAMs in an antisurface role would work better sine they are controlled by the launching ship, but again - expensive. There are a number of other options as well but they may or may not have been on hand.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
